Friday, April 09, 2010

I want to offer a challenge to Sarah Palin. Of course she won't (can't) accept such a challenge....but I want to offer it anyway.

I want to challenge her to a general knowledge quiz (100 questions, true and false, multiple choice, short answer/fill in the blank, and one 2-3 page essay question).

This quiz would cover general knowledge in areas of American history, current events, international affairs/international affairs history, geography, The Constitution, basic civics, the functions of government, global conflicts, etc. Nothing too complicated. The material would cover items that a high school student or undergraduate college student should know. It would certainly consist of items that a former Governor and former VP candidate...and likely future candidate for major office should know. I'm talking about 8th, 9th, 10th & 11th grade level stuff here.... the kinds of basic questions that might be found on a citizenship test... perhaps a little tougher, depending on the topic.

None of the questions would be known before the quiz. The quiz could be put together by any neutral high school teacher or college professor/instructor....or a panel of the same. The quiz should be proctored by academics at local colleges/Universities (because i'm not going to travel).... or it could be administered completely online. One caveat... I would be able to maintain my anonymity.

I'm just a guy of average intelligence.... just a blogger/nobody... certainly a Presidential or Vice Presidential hopeful and former Governor and VP candidate should be able to cream me in a challenge like this.

Isn't this the same woman who had to write 'remember to mention-tax cuts, energy' on the palm of her right hand during a Q&A session at one of those Tea Party rally things and after she got caught brought Jesus into the situation? LOL

I don't think it's constructive to ridicule Palin's intelligence; and issuing a challenge to test her smarts won't prove anything and won't make the political situation any better. As Noam Chomsky put it when liberals were ridiculing Bush, it's either harmful to the left or 'childish'.

Mikhail,you need to be talking to the Republican party.They are on 24 /7,spewing hate,lies and misdirection.Beck,Limbaugh,Hannity,Oriely,etc,are on all day,every day,but you want to tell us how to conduct ourselves.This has no social value.You sound like a double agent,trying to get us off the tail of your resident ding a ling.I smell COINTELPRO.

I'm a socialist-Marxist. I will criticise you liberals because, in my opinion, you're not leftwing enough.

I am repulsed by everything that the rightwing say; it's nothing but hate, lies and public manipulation.But that's the point: they are nothing but attack-dog-mongrels for big business; it's their job to spew myths and misconceptions (such as: the rich worked hard to make their money; people on welfare are lazy; war is just; etc).

I get annoyed at you liberals, especially celebrities like Keith Olbermann.

You should be saying: the right spew hateful, disgusting, wrongful, propaganda; this is the real world; this is why the right lies to you; here's what you should do about it.

You are saying: conservatives are so stupid; look at Palin, can't even remember which is Iran and which is Iraq; look at George Bush, bumbling around like a clown.

If you want to know what I think, have a listen to Noam Chomsky (who isn't a socialist, but he is close):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGavfvL808Y

I don't think it's constructive to ridicule Palin's intelligence; and issuing a challenge to test her smarts won't prove anything and won't make the political situation any better. As Noam Chomsky put it when liberals were ridiculing Bush, it's either harmful to the left or 'childish'.

I try to do both... both perspectives are legitimate.I think that raising questions about the intelligence and qualifications of a candidate for major political office like the President of the United States or VP is legitimate and important. In fact, it's crucial. We don't do it enough in this Country.

A candidate for any other job in the land.... even dog catcher or camp counselor...has his/her qualifications examined by a prospective employer. Why should it be any different for one of the most important jobs in the world? And in this case, the prospective employer = us.. the citizens. Even as a pundit who hasn't committed to running for office... there should be a challenge. Because pundits have the power to determine what the political narrative is going to be. I don't think Palin is even qualified to do that.

I agree that this is important (and if you have been following the blog...we have been posting an awful lot on that angle...check the archives). But competence is at least just as critical IMO. In fact, competence may be a more important issue in this Country.

Why?

Because Americans have a slightly greater tolerance for racists than they do dummies when it comes to politics. They'll tolerate the Hell out of a bigot. Pat Buchanan & Richard Nixon, among others, had issues/concerns raised regarding race...but they were still elected or allowed to do punditry or serve in other ways (in the case of Buchanan). Hell, even David Duke, one of the biggest White supremacists in America, had a short stint in politics as a representative. Limbaugh is damn near openly prejudice...but he's one of the richest talk show hosts on the air and he also serves as the spiritual leader or Ayatollah of sorts of the Republican Party. A tinge of racism or xenophobia is much more tolerable to White voters. They are much more forgiving on that front.

But they are more skeptical of dimwits who can't name all of the Continents and who can't name a single newspaper that they read on a regular basis. Competence is important...and it's legitimate to raise questions about the readiness of those in power or those who are close to power. People want to know that they have a general understanding about what's going on in the World.

This is why most Americans don't believe she is competent enough to handle the Presidency....a whopping 69% in fact, according to recent polling from CNN. see data here. So these are legitimate questions to ask. That number is at 69% not because of her hate tinged language or her demonstrations of xenophobia and bigotry. That number reads 69% because Americans don't want a dimwit in charge in an emergency when someone has to make an important decision that will impact lives or change the course of history.

Don't get me wrong.... Americans will elect a dense candidate if they feel comfortable enough... they did it with G.W. Bush (who rode into office primarily because of his name/connection to George H.W. Bush). But Americans are also still a little shell shocked from that and I think they want someone who will be a little more insightful, engaged, intellectually curious, and aware. Reagan wasn't the smartest apple in the bunch....and his Civil Rights record wasn't stellar.... but he wasn't a rabid racist...and wasn't as radically far right as the people we see now in the Conservative movement. Plus, Reagan (love him or hate him) had an uncanny talent for communication and diplomacy...and was one of the greatest Statesmen that we ever had for a President. Can't say the same for McCain/Palin or the Tea Party folks we are seeing today. Even many of the aides for Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush think many in the Tea Party, and their political supporters, are plain crazy. They don't see today's GOP as the same GOP from 25-30 years ago.

I believe the key to defeating the Republicans is to destroy their rhetoric.Reagan, Bush, and all Republicans speak about 'freedom'. It's vital that people on the left break down that rhetoric, expose the reality behind that, and show the hidden agenda.

Never let a Tea Party member spew rhetoric without context. When they say 'We support freedom; cut spending; kill the bill,' it crucial that the true policy programs be revealed.What type of freedom are you advocating for? Can you give an example?What spending should be cut?

The 2000 election was the perfect Republican situation: an ordinary, hard-yakka, working man, not the smartest, religious, honest and has good morals (Bush) versus this super intelligent, arrogant, 'atheist', lying, lazy, liberal elite (Gore).

"The two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a ‘gentleman's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote ... May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties." -- W.E.B. DuBois (1922)